Talk:Vyasa

Vyasa is a title

I have read somewhere but the reference eludes me right now that Vyasa is a title and not a name of a person. Just like the title King or emperor can be used for many, Vyasa can be too and that there have been 24 Vyasas so far. Perhaps that may make some of the discussion more understandable for other people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.60.190.94 (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, it makes sense Vyasa means divider, so there could have been many of them and he represents the paramount idea of a rishi, one who is knowledgeable in all teachings and actually fully experiences them!Domsta333 (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Title have specific mention of the position and not the name as Sages, Maharishis are the positions and after it the name of the person is mentioned. So, here Vyasa is the name of a character from Mahabharata. ItWiki97 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Move

I moved the page to Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa, because I thought using the full name was more appropriate.

If you disagree, please comment here.

- Agnistus (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. His name is Vyasa, and this is the name that is commonly used. Veda Vyasa is an alternate name. Krishna is another name, as is Dvaipayana, these two sometimes used in combination, and not very often. The combinations of all four is not 'the full name' - unless you can show that his mother named him that. There is no policy that sanctions this move, and there was no discussion of it. It should be moved back. Imc (talk) 09:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) (edited)

I suggest that the article be moved back to "Vyasa", the most popular one as in Britannica, for example.[1] --Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved back to Vyasa. Imc (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Authoritative

I wanted to add the following: Bhagwan Swaminarayan accepted the authority of Vyasa. In Vachanamrut Gadhadha III-10 Bhagwan Swaminarayan says, "...then please quote a verse from the scriptures of Vyasji or a verse from the Vedas to prove it. Why these two? Because there is no greater acharya than Vyasji. Others who have become acharyas and have established their sampradayas, have accepted the scriptures written by Vyasji as authoritative. Therefore, the words of Vyasji, the foremost acharya, are more authoritative than the words of all the other acharyas."

Distinction between mythological Vyasa and historial Vyasa

There is a wide overlap of the two outlooks throughout the article. It will be more readable and accurate if split into two major sections ( historial and mythical) or perhaps even two articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.82.6 (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

My Western mind is stymied by the lack of historical facts about these great spiritual persons of the ancient past. Some contemporary Sant Mat masters have based some of their discourses on ancient Hindu sages. This helps to validate the reality of Hindu tradition to present day thinkers. These topics just don't fit well into our rather Eurocentric view of ourselves and the universe. Part of the problem might be because of the fundamental difference between orally transmitted knowledge and "written facts", but I believe the real problem is that, as an entire culture, our minds have not been sufficiently exposed to spiritual traditions. (I'm bordering on Cosmology here, a separate Wikipedia article.) If we separate out "mythology" we might miss something that our Western Eurocentric minds regard as myth, but is actually of spiritual/religious significance. By keeping them together we maintain a more dynamic platform in which people are exposed to a wider variety of well-thought-out possibilities.LFlagg (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Vyasa Reference for time period - Legacy of the Elder Gods

The use of "Legacy of the Elder Gods" by M. Don Schorn is not a viable reference. The author is a former mechanical engineer that believes that humanity was placed here by two extraterrestrial species and has written the aforementioned book about it. It is not a useable reference to cite an author who is in the absolute best case, not even mentioned or considered by academia to have any validity and in the worst case, borders on mental fragility... It is his personal theory about how humanity was seeded on Earth. The theory is not imaginative, it is irresponsible. Its citation does not belong in an encyclopaedia... Its citation as an authority for the origin and timeframe of Vyasa has even less validity... I am posting this before I remove use of the reference Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Stevenmitchell: Oh, good grief. Well done, sir. --Thnidu (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

birthplace

The lede says

There are two different views regarding his birthplace. One of the views suggests that he was born in the Tanahun district in western Nepal.

What's the other view? It isn't mentioned. --Thnidu (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Vyasa

Vyasa is always defined in encyclopedias as the author of the Mahabharata [2], [3], [4], [5]. The theory of multiple "Vyasa"s (which is found in Vishnu Purana, and already noted in the article) needs to be noted, but not in the lead sentence.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vyasa is a " title given to a particular sage" in every yuga cycle.The name of the sage who currently hold this "Vyasa" titles is Krishna Dvaipayana. So he is called Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa or simply Vyasa.He is the author if Mahabaratha and numerous other texts. But the title "Vyasa" does not exclusively belong to Krishna Dvaipayana. It earlier belonged to many other Sages and transferred to other persons after a specified period of time.Just like "PRESIDENT OR PRIME MINISTER " of a country.No one can eternally hold a title.Lots of texts like Vishnu Purana ,Siva Purana,infact all puranas agrees with it.Please go through SIVA PURANA,ESPECIALLY SECTION/PART 3 ,CHAPTER 3

THE ORIGINAL FROM THE TEXT IS QUOTED BELOW

"CHAPTER THREE VEDA VYASA AND SIGNIFICANCE OF BRAHMAGYAN Maitreya says- "O Lord! How did God divide Vedas in the form of Veda Vyasa during different yugas?" Parashar says- During each Dwapar Yuga, in every Kalpa, Lord Vishnu takes incarnation as Veda Vyasa and effects the division of Vedas for the benefit of human beings. During every Dwapar Yuga of the present Vaivasvat Manvantara, different Vyasas have divided the Vedas twenty-eight times. During the first Dwapar, Brahma himself had divided the Vedas. During the second Dwapar, Prajapati was Veda Vyasa. During the third Dwapar, Shukracharya was Veda Vyasa. During fourth Dwapar, Brihaspati acted as Veda Vyasa. Description of other sages who acted as Veda Vyasa during the subsequent Dwapars is as follows- Surya- fifth Veda Vyasa; Mrityu- sixth Veda Vyasa, Indra- seventh Veda Vyasa, Vashishta- eighth Veda Vyasa, Saraswat- ninth Veda Vyasa, Tridhama- tenth Veda Vyasa, Trishikh- eleventh Veda Vyasa, Bharadwaj- twelfth Veda Vyasa, Antariksh- thirteenth Veda Vyasa, Varani- fourteenth Veda Vyasa. Names of next fourteen Veda Vyasas are as follows- Trayyarun, Dhananjay, Krutunjay, Jay, Bharadwaj, Gautam, Haryatma, Vajshrava, Trinbindhu, Riksh (Valmiki), Shakti, Parashar, Jatukarn and Krishnadwaipayan. After Krishnadwaipayan, Drona's son, Ashwatthama will be the next Veda Vyasa."

So i am going to revert the edits you made to back to the original state.I believe you noticed i added Krishna Dvaipayana in many places to indicate the life and contributions of current Vyasa title holder.i.e Krishna Dvaipayana VyasaArjunkrishna90 (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, please quote WP:SECONDARY references which define Vyasa as "is the title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle". Majority of WP:RS encyclopedias (see in my first comment) define him as author of Mahabharata: Krishna Dwaipayana. The quoted text is from Vishnu Purana again, not Shiva Purana. "Lots of texts like Vishnu Purana ,Siva Purana,infact all puranas agrees with it": highly questionable generalization based on one Purana.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Vyasa as "is the title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas ″in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle". That is what i am talking,there were many VYASAS .Its just simply a title given to a person. Current Vayasa title holder is Krishna Dwaipayana ,The author of MAHABRATHA. BUT THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE NAMED VYASA CANNOT SOLELY ONLY MENTION ABOUT Krishna Dwaipayana vyasa. The page Vyasa is meant for all Vyasa title holders. If need more clarity we have to start a new page on Wikipedia saying Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa or indicate Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa a- as i have done in the Vyasa page for mentioning current Vyasa

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, You are requested to provide reliable references to back that Vyasa is defined primarily as "the title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle" (which is IMO a WP:FRINGE in one source Vishnu Purana); rather than an individual who is "the author of the Mahabharata, as well as a character in it ... the scribe of both the Vedas and Puranas." --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ofcourse, i will provide references to prove that vyasa is "a title given to the sage or Rishi who divides the Hindu holy scripture Vedas in every Dvapara Yuga of every Yuga cycle" rather than an individual who is "the author of the Mahabharata, as well as a character in it ... the scribe of both the Vedas and Puranas."

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Then don't change the article until you can provide the citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

REFERENCES FROM VARIOUS PURANAS

1.Vishnu Purana (Book 3, Ch 3) says:

"In every third world age (Dvapara), Vishnu, in the person of Vyasa, in order to promote the good of mankind, divides the Veda, which is properly but one, into many portions. Observing the limited perseverance, energy, and application of mortals, he makes the Veda fourfold, to adapt it to their capacities; and the bodily form which he assumes, in order to effect that classification, is known by the name of Veda-vyasa. Of the different Vyasas in the present Manvantara and the branches which they have taught, you shall have an account. Twenty-eight times have the Vedas been arranged by the great Rishis in the Vaivasvata Manvantara... and consequently eight and twenty Vyasas have passed away; by whom, in the respective periods, the Veda has been divided into four. The first... distribution was made by Svayambhu (Brahma) himself; in the second, the arranger of the Veda (Vyasa) was Prajapati... (and so on up to twenty-eight)."

2.SIVA Purana says:

VARIOUS INCARNATION OF VYASA AND LORD SHIVA

During the 'Varaha' Kalpa of the Seventh 'Manvantar' lord Vishnu illuminated all the three world by his divine presence. This seventh Manvantara consisted of four yugas which repeated themselves in a cyclic way for twelve times.

− The first dwapar of this seventh manvantar saw the manifestation of lord Shiva for the welfare of the brahmins. When Kali Yuga arrived Lord Shiva again manifested himself along with goddess Shakti and was known as Mahamuni Shweta. Lord Brahma had the priviledge of becoming his disciple.

− During the second dwapar, sage Vyasa existed as Satya, Prajapati and Lord Shiva became famous as 'Sutar'. Lord Shiva in his incarnation of Sutra had many disciples among whom 'Dundubhi' was very famous.

− During the third dwapar sage Vyasa took his incarnation as Bhargava and lord Shiva became famous as Daman. Lord Shiva in his incarnation as Daman had four disciples among whom Vishoka was very famous. When Kali Yuga arrived after this third dwapar. Lord Shiva along with his Disciples helped Sage Vyasa.

− During the fourth Dwapar Sage Vyasa took his incarnation as Angira and Lord Shiva as 'Suhotra'. Even in this incarnation Lord Shiva had four disciples among whom Sumukh was very famous. Lord Shiva along with his disciples helped Angira.

− During the fifth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Savita and Lord Shiva as 'Kanka' who was very famous for his tremendous austerities. Kanka had four disciples among whom Sanak was very famous.

− During the sixth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Mrityu and Lord Shiva as 'Lokakshi'. Lokakshi had four disciples among whom Sudhama was very prominent.

− During the seventh dwapar sage Vyasa manifested himself as Indra and Lord Shiva as Jaigisatya. Jaigisatya had four disciples among whom Saraswat was very prominent.

− During the eighth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Vashishtha and Lord Shiva as Dadhivahan. Dadhivahan had four disciples among whom Kapila was very famous.

− During the nineth dwapar sage Vyasa took incarnation as Saraswat and Lord Shiva as 'Rishabh'. Lord Shiva in his incarnation as Rishabhdeva had four disciples among whom Parashar was very famous.

− − − 3.FROM KURMA PURANA

− − Veda Vyasa

− In every Dvapara Yuga, a Veda Vyasa is born so as to divide the Vedas and disseminate their knowledge. In the present era, there have been twenty-eight Dvapara Yugas and there have therefore been twenty-eight individuals who have held the title of Veda Vyasa. The Kurma Purana gives their names as follows.

− (1) Svayambhuva Manu. (2) Prajapati. (3) Ushana. (4) Brihaspati. (5) Savita. (6) Mrityu. (7) Indra. (8) Vashishtha. (9) Sarasvata. (10) Tridhama. (11) Rishabha. (12) Suteja. (13) Dharma. (14) Sachakshu. (15) Trayaruni. (16) Dhananjaya. (17) Kritanjaya. (18) Ritanjaya. (19) Bharadvaja. (20) Goutama. (21) Vachashrava. (22) Narayana. (23) Trinavindu. (24) Valmiki. (25) Shaktri. (26) Parashara. (27) Jatukarna. (28) Krishna Dvaipayana.

− Krishna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa divided the Vedas into four parts and taught them to four of his disciples. He taught Paila the Rig Veda. Vaishampayana the Yajur Veda, Jaimini the Sama Veda and Sumantu the Atharva Veda. As for the Puranas, they were taught to Lomaharshana.

THESE ARE INFORMATIONS FROM 3 DIFFERENT PURANAS. TO GET REFERENCES FROM BOOKS SO THAT WE CAN ADD ON THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE IT CAN BE GIVEN TO "" ANY TRANSLATION OF SIVA OR VISHNU OR KURMA PURANAS " BY " ANY AUTHOR " BCOZ THESE ARE MAIN PARTS OF THE TEXTS AND SAME IN ANY AUTHORS TRANSLATION.

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

LINK TO VISHNU PURANA

<H. H. Wilson. The Vishnu Purana: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition (Translated from the Original Sanskrit),Hardcover – 31 Dec 2010,Sri Satguru Publications,ISBN: 8170309166

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjunkrishna90, these are WP:PRIMARY translations. Can you please quote from reliable WP:SECONDARY books, encyclopedias or other references where Vyasa is defined as a title.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

BOOK REFERENCES

---

1. VISHNU PURANA

J.L Shastri. The Vishnu Purana: A System of Hindu Mythology and Tradition (Translated from the Original Sanskrit),Hardcover – 31 Dec 2010,Sri Satguru Publications,ISBN: 8170309166

2. SIVA PURANA

J.L Shastri. The Siva Purana Full Volume ,HARDBACK Edition 2008,Motilal Banarsidass Publication ,ISBN-13: 9788120803398 ISBN: 8120803396

3.KURMA PURANA

Shanti Lal Nagar, Kurma Purana (Sanskrit Text with English Translation),Hardcover (Edition:2011),Parimal Publications,ISBN 9788171103263 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjunkrishna90 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia article and as such it deals with the primary use and understanding of the name or term 'Vyasa', which is of Vyasa of the Mahabharata. While the Vishnu Purana may be important, it is of far lower notability than the Mahabharata. Hence, the information you want to add about the title 'Vyasa' may be mentioned, but as Redtigerxyz has pointed out, belongs as a side note in the article. You may want to start a new article for your information called, say, 'Vyasa (title)'. Imc (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Second what Imc said.

This article is clearly about Vyasa the author of Mahabharata (etc), and not about the concept of "Vyasa" as per the Vishnu Purana (which is far, far less notable). Also, the issue is not about whether a secondary source can be found attesting to Vishnu Purana's concept of Vyasa, but of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which per usage is unarguable Vyasa the author of Mahabharata. So finding a few secondary sources is important so far as establishing notability and creating an Vyasa (title) article is concerned, but would not impact the subject or lede of this article. Abecedare (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The current article named "Vyasa" in Wikipedia at present only indicate about "an individual or a person" who wrote Mahabharata.Mahabharata & several other texts is written by a person who holds the "vyasa position" & he is called "Krishna Dvaipayana or Kishna Dvypaaina Vyasa".People out of ignorance just call him Vyasa . So to indicate the author of Mahabratha we have to start a new page "Krishna Dvyapaina Vyasa " or make necessary changes in the current article titled Vyasa.

In simple terms to include the entire concept of Vyasa in a single page i.e in the present page give a small indication that "Vyasa - is a position given to an individual for a limited period of time" and the person who currently holds this position is Krishna Dvypaina. So to indicate the author of Mahabratha we have to mention "HIM" every time as Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa not simply Vyasa bcoz it causes confusion to people who knows about truth!!.

I have made edits on the Vyasa wikipedia page to indicate it.But the user "Redtigerxyz" undid edits i made solely based on his individual concepts or ideas.Why cant anyone go through the edits and see or think about it for a few seconds.People who have absolutely no idea about Hinduism claims that Vyasa is just a single person."But in actual its just a position given to an individual for a limited period of time". All the references support my claims!!!!.I believe few editors are trying to make people fools by giving false information and supporting it. Is it Wikipedia stands for??. If somebody wants to understand please go through the edits i made so that you may understand it better

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel stupid and this entire discussion feels hilarious because,I found out in "THIS TALK PAGE" itself DIFFERENT TIMES IN 2006,2007,2008 different users mentioned that ""Vyasa is just a title given to people for a time period"" and ""the author of Mahabratha should be called Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa"".If you want to see it look above in this TALK page ,sub titled"About his name 'veda vyaasa' in 2006 ", "Vyasa is a title in 2007 ", "Move 2008" .I still wonder why is this wrong mistakes still in this page even though over the years many users pointed out??????

I saw that the users Redtigerxyz & Imc in 2008 commenting on this issue .So question to Redtigerxyz & Imc - Are you guys wrong??? This is the question you should ask yourself because over the years multiple users pointed out mistakes and you still dont rectify the mistakes.

If you want to explain about "THE VYASA" WHO WROTE MAHABHARATA ,THEN YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE TITLE OF THIS PAGE TO "Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa" AND START A NEW PAGE NAMED "Vyasa(title)"

OR

In the present title Vyasa page on wikipedia, make a sentence that Vyasa is just a " position" and denote every time " Krishna Dvypaina Vyasa " when talking about the author of Mahabharata.

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You should propose your change, if you actually believe that it has been pointed by many other users. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

If its okay for all the party's involved in this discussion,then i will make necessary changes to the page.Please observe it after i made necessary changes and comment to make any changes.Thanks

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Arjun, as has been explained by Redtigerxyz, Imc and me, the current article title and lede is correct as per wikipedia policies. Let me try to summarize the reasons one last time:

• The author of MBh (etc) is known by various names/titles: Krishna Dvaipayana, Vyasa, and Ved Vyasa. However amongst these, Vyasa is the most common name used by both primary and secondary sources. Hence the article is correctly titled Vyasa (rather than Krishna Dvaipayana or Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa), with the lede mentioning the other names/titles.
• The word Vyasa has several meanings in Sanskrit along the lines of distribution; compiler etc. However the only (or, at least primary) encyclopedic subject for the term corresponds to the author of MbH. Now, the Vishnu Purana's concept of multiple persons accorded the title Vyasa can be briefly mentioned in the article, and if multiple secondary sources are found on that topic, a separate article Vyasa (title) can be created. However the subject of this article (and hence its lede sentence) should remain Vyasa, the author of Mbh.

Hope that makes it clear. If you still disagree, feel free to follow any of the dispute resolution processes. However do not reinstate your changes to the article lede etc unless you have established consensus for those changes. Abecedare (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Changing Vyasa page name to Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa

As discussed on this TALK page and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard , i have created a new page Vyasa_(title).But feel that the existing page Vyasa should be renamed to " Krishna Dvaipāyana Vyasa ", in order to mention about the author of Mahabharata and his contribution.The new page Vyasa_(title) should be the general platform for indicating all Vyasas ever existed . Also i want to include in the Vyasa page that "Vyasa is just a "position for a brief period of time given to an individual"

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Arjunkrishna, position has no name as clearly mentioned for a brief period of time. And Vyasa is a name of the great sage of Mahabharat epic. So, please google, have your mind on your place first before commenting on the talk page of any article on Wikipedia. ItWiki97 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: This discussion was held multiple times earlier with majority opposing the move. .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 12:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Vyasa → Krishna Dvaipayana – The word "Vyasa" is a title to many sages of different time periods. This article is about one such sage of this time period. His real name is Krishna Dvaipayana, the author of the Mahabharata. To make this confusion clear, this article should be renamed Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa, Krishna Dvaipayana or Vyasa (Krishna Dvaipayana) .💠245CMR💠.•^👥📜 11:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)}}

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

vyasa's birth

It is said that his father Parashara perceived him from Satyavati without taking her maidenhood, adn that he transformed into a man as soon as he was born.

Hello, everyone is writing according to his point of view but really no one is writing the truth and diverting from the original books where it is clearly mentioned that Sage Bhardwaja had pre-marital relation with Satyawati. Now, you guys will put fake copies where fake father Sage Parashar is mentioned. Thank You. ItWiki97 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

So, please change the name from Sage Parashar to Sage Bharswaja. ItWiki97 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Sage Bhardwaja. I'm sorry for my typing mistake. Thank You. ItWiki97 (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ItWiki97: Any reliable source for claims. Most sources including "The Critical Edition of Mahabharata" clearly mentions Parashara. We can't change anything like that, scholarly sources are required. Also, Vyasa—historical or not—have been accepted as Parashara's son..245CMR.•^👥📜 17:45, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources( with fake mention of Sage Parashar ) for mentioning Sage Parashar instead of Real father of Sage Vyasa as Sage Bhardwaja ?? Please, do mention about it too as Wikipedia do have a policy where an article can be deleted when no reliable sources can be found for a given article. Please someone from the administrator privileges and higher privileges do, mediate between the article edit conflict. Thank You. ItWiki97 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@ItWiki97: Here are WP:RS which mention Vyasa as Parashara's son.

• Mani, Vettam (1975). Puranic Encyclopaedia: A Comprehensive Dictionary With Special Reference to the Epic and Puranic Literature. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 885 (Vyāsa). ISBN 0-8426-0822-2.
• Roshen Dalal (2014). Hinduism: an alphabetical guide.
• Bibek Debroy. The Mahabharata: Volume 1. (translation and comentary on BORI Critical Edition)
• Ph.D, James G. Lochtefeld (2001-12-15). The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Volume 2. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. ISBN 978-0-8239-3180-4.
• "The Mahabharata, Book 1: Adi Parva: Adivansavatarana Parva: Section LXIII". www.sacred-texts.com. Retrieved 2021-06-14. (translation of the epic, if you don't believe the above sources)

@ItWiki97: Do you need more sources to be convinced? .245CMR.•^👥📜 03:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: You can check here to see the discussion of dispute (if you are interested). .245CMR.•^👥📜 03:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not part of this content discussion. The two of you - and hopefully others if needed - need to work it out, by citing sources as you have done. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@MelanieN: Ok, thank you very much..245CMR.•^👥📜 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Italics

Hello. Please go through the page and italicize Mahabharata. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Locked for 2 days. May be, an admin can help.245CMR.•^👥📜 12:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, have removed the template and will wait. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead

"Controversial information"

A user is adding controversial information on the article Vyasa. He is adding this phrase "founder of a great religion" from a book which doesn't look that much reliable. Other RS by Religion scholars have no such thing. Please check the matter. .245CMR.•^👥📜 06:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotrider555, Redtigerxyz, and Whiteguru:, your participation is required to settle this matter..245CMR.•^👥📜 06:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• The Citation is unreliable; Vyasa did not save the Vedas, Hayagreeva did. Hinduism has no founder, and the Vedas are 'sruti, that which is heard by the sages. The reversion is proper and correct. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

That is no strong reasoning. And what reasoning you have that the reference is no reliable? This comes down to personal opinion and Wikipedia doesn't rely on that. The reference is credible just like all others in the article. SO just because this particular reference doesn't suit your need, it doesn't mean that you have to consider it unreliable. However, I did remove "great" from the comment even though that is what the reference states. SO there should be no need to revert my changes again and again. Thank you. --AtmaramU (talk)

• @Cinderella157, Eastfarthingan, HaughtonBrit, HistoryofIran, Brunswicknic, and RegentsPark:, your participation is required to settle this matter. --AtmaramU (talk)

  (ec) No clue about the content but AtmaramU and 245CMR, both of you are edit warring and could potentially be blocked. Please use the article talk page to get consensus on whether or not the source is reliable or take it to WP:RSN. AtmaramU, since (apparently) you're adding the source, note that the onus is on you to show that it is reliable. Perhaps @Sitush: can help. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark: Yes the source is reliable from reputed publisher and translated by a professor, Prof. L. S. Sheshagiri Rao and well known Indian author Sri B. G. Ramesh. The same author has written various books. I even went as far as posting all the sources in the article including the one that I am referring to in the WP:RSN. So from my part, I am making effort. But this individual 245CMR has absolutely no reasoning and no explanation and keeps reverting changes. He states that his reasoning for revert is that because the content is controversial. I do not understand that. I have even removed "great" from the comment even though that is what the reference states, just to be neutral. --AtmaramU

@AtmaramU: I think the easiest way out of this is for you to take the source to WP:RSN and see what they say. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• There are POV issues when you characterize a religion as "great". Besides, what religion did Vyasa supposedly found? Hinduism has no founder and Vyasa is considered the author of the Mahabharata and Puranas, but he is still not considered a founder of religion. The book itself seems to not be of great merit, and its author does not seem to have any scholarly credentials. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about Hinduism. Hinduism term itself is a 19th century invention by British Colonists. Vyasa was the founder of VEDIC RELIGION. Even though I am not using this following as a source but it can help you or anyone provide more info on Vedic religion. [6]. The earlier source in question is translated by academic scholar Prof. L. S. Sheshagiri Rao and written by well known author of religion and history Sri B.G. Ramesh. AtmaramU (talk)

He did not create the Vedic religion. The historical Vedic religion naturally developed among some Indo-Aryan peoples, deriving from the older Indo-Iranian tradition and syntheses with other religious cults from Central Asia, BMAC, and IVC remnants. Hinduism as a religion can be reasonably stated to have existed since the Hindu synthesis during the Classical Period. These sources you are bringing up are of very low quality. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Chariotrider555 (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. He did create the Vedic religion according to various sources and lets no indulge in discussion about how, what and when because then its just becomes what we think we know rather than what the source and its content states. And what makes you consider that the source is low quality? Because you disagree with it? That's not how Wikipedia works. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources as well.AtmaramU (talk)

@AtmaramU: Please refer to scholarly books about history of Hinduism rather than these unreliable websites. "Vyasa founded Vedic religion", not at all. Even in Hindu tradition, Vyasa only separated it, not composed it. Vedic texts have contributions of various historical sages (Vashishtha, Vishvamitra, Atri), who were later "mytholigized". Also most scholars of religious sstudies agree that Hinduism has no founder and is formed by the fusion of various tribal, Dravidian and Aryan cultures (for sources see Hinduism#History. I don't want to start another edit war, that's why I am not reverting this..245CMR.•^👥📜 16:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@245CMR: See that is the problem. You are claiming unreliable sources based on your personal perception of what is and what isn't reliable source. And why is Hinduism even being considered a topic here when I didn't even mention anything about it. Vyasa was the founder of Vedic religiion as referenced by the academic scholars and translators of the book. And since when did own opinions started to matter in disagreeing with the credible sourced content? Lets stick to the source and the content and then to go over what he/she thinks is the true history. Everything needs a source and that is what Wikipedia relies on.AtmaramU (talk)

@Joshua Jonathan, Fowler&fowler, पाटलिपुत्र, and LearnIndology: Pls join, experienced users are needed to settle this matter..245CMR.•^👥📜 16:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@AtmaramU: Thank you for your contributions. Your claims are against the scholarship of the last 100 years. I advise you to revert yourself. Have a good day. LearnIndology (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes till the discussion comes to a conclusion. I would prefer to not sidetrack the audience so that they are paying attention to the discussion that is the center of topic here. Thank you. AtmaramU (talk)

• @Cinderella157, Eastfarthingan, HaughtonBrit, HistoryofIran, Brunswicknic, Dumuzid, Doctorhawkes, Hijiri88, Greatder, Canterbury Tail, Doug Weller, and Mikehawk10:, your participation is required to settle this matter. Any feedback would be appreciated. --AtmaramU (talk)

After going through the source, it seems overall reliable. But AtmaramU, here is the problem. The reference doesn't exactly state what religion. It doesn't specifically state Vedic or Hinduism. It just states, "founder of the great religion". And this is very vague. So if you insert that exact comment in the article, it will look like Vyasa was founder of Hinduism which will be incorrect. So wise thing to do here is to remove the religion portion of the statement as its not clear. I did go through the edits and looks like you already removed the statement and it looks perfectly fine. Now if you want to backup the statement that Vyasa was founder of Vedic religion, then you would need to bring a reliable source to back the statement. Hope this helps. HaughtonBrit (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit-warring report opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AtmaramU reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: ). I've seen quite a number of disruptive editors, but removing talkposts twice diff dif, with the comment Doesn't need to be sidetracked, that's another level of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Definitely WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

And can someone explain to me how a one-month old account, which has made 76 edits, can sum up the names of Cinderella157, Eastfarthingan, HaughtonBrit, HistoryofIran, Brunswicknic, Dumuzid, Doctorhawkes, Hijiri88, Greatder, Canterbury Tail, Doug Weller, and Mikehawk10? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

True! I've never even heard of half of them! Chariotrider555 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I have heard of only one (Doug) and I am editing for over six months. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Gurudeva

Addition:

In his own day, he was looked up to as the Gurudeva and the founder of religion. (Source: Vyasa. Sapna Book House. 2012. p. 15. ISBN 9788128017803.)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Source only says "In his own day he was looked up to as the Gurudeva and the founder of a Great Religion." Apart from being a copy-vio, no explication which religion he founded, though according to AtmaramU Vyasa was the founder of VEDIC RELIGION. According to tradition, Veda Vyasa compiled, c.q. arranged, the mantras of the Vedas; he was not the author c.q. composer, even lest the founder of the Vedic religion. Durga Das Basu, The Essence of Hinduism, p.14: "Vyasa was not the author of the Vedas."
• The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this info is not in the article, as explained before.
• The source does not look like WP:RS, as explained before. It's some sort of religious biography, pulled from traditional sources. The section on "Vyasa's Age" concludes that he lived ca. 3000 BCE. That's about the time the Indo-European migrations started, and a millennium before the advent of the Sintashta culture. So, where do we situate Vyasa, somewhere at the Ukrainian steppes?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Mahabharat

Addition:

Vyasa was a witness to the events of the Mahabharata. Mahabharata was also known as the fifth Veda. (Source: Vyasa. Sapna Book House. 2012. p. 15. ISBN 9788128017803.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"Vyasa was a witness to the events of the Mahabharata" - should be "According to Sri B. G. Ramesh ..." (you didn't even bother to add the author's name...). Who's Sri B. G. Ramesh, how does he know taht Vyasa was an eye-witness to the events of the Mahabharata? Unreliable, undue. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sikhism

Removal:

In Sikhism
In Brahm Avtar, one of the compositions in Dasam Granth, the Second Scripture of Sikhs, Guru Gobind Singh mentions Rishi Vyas as an avatar of Brahma. He is considered the fifth incarnation of Brahma. Guru Gobind Singh wrote a brief account of Rishi Vyas's compositions about great kings— Manu, Prithu, Bharath, Jujat, Ben, Mandata, Dilip, Raghu Raj and Aj— and attributed to him the store of Vedic learning.

references

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Explanation by AtmaramU: not relevant to the subject nor do the references support the content.

• At p.77 Kapoor mentions Vyas Avtar

Misleading edit-summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Those who replied. Thank you for providing feedback. Much appreciated. --AtmaramU (talk)

Vedic Religion

Some information on Vedic Religion. Most scholars also call it Brahmanical Religion.

The religious practices of the early Indo-Aryans, known as the Vedic religion (1500 BCE to 500 BCE) were written down and later redacted into the Samhitas, four canonical collections of hymns or mantras, called the Veda, in archaic Sanskrit.

Vedic religion had a strict code of rituals where the kings, the aristocrats and the rich merchants would contribute as the cost of organising such worship was very high and time-consuming. The mode of worship was prayer to the elements like fire and rivers, worship of heroic gods like Indra, chanting of hymns and carrying out sacrifices. Sacrifice was the offering of food, objects or the lives of animals to the gods as an act of propitiation or worship. In Vedic times, Yagya commonly included the sacrifice of milk, ghee, curd, grains, and the soma plant—animal offerings were less common.

The primary philosophy weighed up in the Upanishads that of one absolute reality termed as Brahman was the main tenet of Vedanta. The sage Vyasa was one of the major proponents of this philosophy and author of the Brahma Sūtras based on the Upanishads. The concept of Brahman – the eternal, self-existent, immanent and transcendent Supreme and Ultimate Reality which was the divine view of all being - was central to most schools of Vedānta. The notion of God or Ishvara was also there. Vedantic sub-schools differed mainly in how they would identify God with Brahman.

Indian philosophy was a confluence of shramanic (self-reliant) traditions, Bhakti traditions with idol worship and Vedic ritualistic nature worship. These co-existed and influenced each other. Śramanas held a view of samsara as full of suffering (or dukkha). They practiced Ahimsa and rigorous ascetism. They believed in Karma and Moksa and viewed re-birth as undesirable.

Vedics, on the contrary, believed in the efficacy of rituals and sacrifices, performed by a privileged group of people, who could improve their life by pleasing certain gods. The Sramanic ideal of mendicancy and renunciation, that the worldly life was full of suffering and that emancipation required abandoning desires and withdrawal into a solitary contemplative life, was in stark contrast with the Brahminical ideal of an active and ritually punctuated life. Traditional Vedic belief held that a man was born with an obligation to study the Vedas, to procreate and bring up male offspring and to perform sacrifices. Only in later life would he meditate on the mysteries of life. The idea of devoting one's whole life to mendicancy seemed to disparage the whole process of Vedic social life and obligations. Because the shramanas rejected the Vedas, the Vedics labelled their philosophy as "nastika darsana" (heterodox philosophy).

--AtmaramU (talk)

Source: Sanujit (23 july 2011), Initiation of religions in India, World History Encyclopedia. What's the relevance of this lenghty quote? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that quote should be removed. We're straying beyond "fair use" and into copyright violation. Not helped by having no explanation of its purpose. Perhaps check with an administrator as it may need to be revision-deleted. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Vyas ki vardhan.jpg
• Vyasa with his mother.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Vyasa2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)